Re: Page Checksums

Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>

From: jesper@krogh.cc

To: "Florian Weimer" <fweimer@bfk.de>

Cc: "Robert Treat" <rob@xzilla.net>, "Jim Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>, "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "David Fetter" <david@fetter.org>, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost@snowman.net>, "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan@highrise.ca>, "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, "Greg Smith" <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, "Koichi Suzuki" <koichi.szk@gmail.com>

Date: 2012-01-24T08:02:28Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

> * Robert Treat:
>
>> Would it be unfair to assert that people who want checksums but aren't
>> willing to pay the cost of running a filesystem that provides
>> checksums aren't going to be willing to make the cost/benefit trade
>> off that will be asked for? Yes, it is unfair of course, but it's
>> interesting how small the camp of those using checksummed filesystems
>> is.
>
> Don't checksumming file systems currently come bundled with other
> features you might not want (such as certain vendors)?

I would chip in and say that I would prefer sticking to well-known proved
filesystems like xfs/ext4 and let the application do the checksumming.

I dont forsee fully production-ready checksumming filesystems readily
available in the standard Linux distributions within a near future.

And yes, I would for sure turn such functionality on if it were present.

-- 
Jesper